Total costs were modest this week, with $66 million in burdens, compared to $42 million in annualized costs and $334 million in benefits. Thanks to a Department of Education (ED) proposal, paperwork accelerated by more than 3.6 million hours. One Dodd-Frank proposal contained minor burdens.
You should be able to keep your financial adviser. Unfortunately, the Department of Labor's (DOL’s) recently proposed “fiduciary rule” threatens this option.
The American Action Forum (@AAF) and the American Action Network today released the results of a national survey examining public attitudes on the Department of Labor’s proposed regulation for financial advisers. Among the key findings, the survey found that Americans oppose the fiduciary regulation (50% to 28%), and are significantly less likely to support the proposed regulation when they hear about the personal impact this would have on middle class savers (73% less likely).
The American Action Forum and American Action Network commissioned a national survey on the financial adviser regulation issued by the Department of Labor. The national survey was conducted by On Message, Inc. The national survey found that:Americans oppose the fiduciary regulation (50% to 28%), and are significantly less likely to support the proposed regulation when they hear about the personal impact this would have on middle class savers (73% less likely). A strong majority (59% to 26%) doesn’t believe it’s the government’s job to decide what’s best for an individual’s personal retirement accounts. Americans believe the Department of Labor lacks the expertise and relevance of running individual Americans’ IRA’s (69% to 20%).
In his 2,312 days in office, President Obama’s administration has finalized 2,210 new regulations that impose a new compliance burden of $659.6 billion. That “One-a-Day” pace means that the regulatory burden has risen by an average of $285 million per day; $11 million per hour; $198,000 per minute; or $3,300 per second of his time in office. Put differently, the regulatory burden has risen by roughly $100 billion per year or $1 trillion over the 10-year budget window.
Most people have a difficult time fully understanding their health insurance coverage, resulting in financial loss. The inability to accurately evaluate the various cost-sharing mechanisms leads many people to select a financially-dominated insurance plan—a plan which, given the premium and cost-sharing amounts, is economically suboptimal. For instance, spending $625 more in annual premium costs for a $500 lower deductible is economically irrational; yet, as shown below, the majority of people make that kind of mistake. A recent report analyzes the costs which result from these suboptimal choices. While people consider many factors besides cost when selecting health insurance, most of these preference differences were eliminated in this study and the problem persisted: 55 percent chose a financially-dominated plan. The average savings which could be achieved by switching from various dominated plans are shown.
Yesterday AAF participated in the Peterson Foundation Fiscal Summit 2015 and unveiled “Balanced: 2028,” its plan to address major social, budgetary and economic needs. One way to think about such a plan is to look at its constituent parts: comprehensive tax reform, reforms to Medicare and Medicaid, immigration reform, funding for defense and other priorities.
Recently the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a new set of regulations for the Internet reclassifying broadband as a utility under Title II in order to achieve “network neutrality.” In part, the change was supported by the view that it would “not have a negative impact on investment and innovation in the Internet marketplace as a whole.” But the logic and the record that the FCC lays out is filled with egregious errors.
As part of the Peterson Foundation’s Solution Initiative, the American Action Forum developed a “scoreable” policy proposal to set the federal budget on a sustainable, long-term path.
With another round of weak economic data and the specter of prolonged growth at the anemic pace of 2.1 percent per year, one would think that proposals to raise economic growth would be of central importance. The beginning of the 2016 White House race has delivered some proposals — candidates Rubio, Paul, Perry, Huckabee, Cruz and Christie have all discussed tax reform ideas as a central part of growing more rapidly — and candidates Bush and Christie have laid out specific growth targets.